dynanic vs basic disks - Storage

This is a discussion on dynanic vs basic disks - Storage ; As part of my work on copying files from a laptop, i tangentially came across the topic of dynamic vs basic disks. I am looking for some validation/verification of the following: From my reading, it seems that basic disks are ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: dynanic vs basic disks

  1. dynanic vs basic disks

    As part of my work on copying files from a laptop, i tangentially came
    across the topic of dynamic vs basic disks.

    I am looking for some validation/verification of the following:

    From my reading, it seems that basic disks are more "portable" (i.e.
    recognized by more OSs and usable in more situations) but any changes
    to partitions need to be done outside of the OS; while dynamic disks
    have more flexibility (change partitoin size in the OS, etc) but are
    limited to xp professional, vista business(nothing with a "home" in
    the name of the os).

    I am not sure how I wound up with a dynamic disk (maybe its the
    default windows uses when installing a new disk), but it seems to me
    that for the average home use, basic disks is the way to go
    1. Move a disk from computer 1 to computer 2: basic is more flexible
    (dynamic will limit the destination computer)
    2. Move a disk from internal to external enclosure: can only be done
    with basic disks
    Thoughts?

    Thanks in advance!

  2. Re: dynanic vs basic disks

    On or about Tue, 23 Sep 2008 16:44:26 -0700 (PDT) did zigipha@hotmail.com
    dribble thusly:

    >As part of my work on copying files from a laptop, i tangentially came
    >across the topic of dynamic vs basic disks.
    >
    >I am looking for some validation/verification of the following:
    >
    >From my reading, it seems that basic disks are more "portable" (i.e.
    >recognized by more OSs and usable in more situations) but any changes
    >to partitions need to be done outside of the OS; while dynamic disks
    >have more flexibility (change partitoin size in the OS, etc) but are
    >limited to xp professional, vista business(nothing with a "home" in
    >the name of the os).
    >
    >I am not sure how I wound up with a dynamic disk (maybe its the
    >default windows uses when installing a new disk), but it seems to me
    >that for the average home use, basic disks is the way to go
    >1. Move a disk from computer 1 to computer 2: basic is more flexible
    >(dynamic will limit the destination computer)
    >2. Move a disk from internal to external enclosure: can only be done
    >with basic disks
    > Thoughts?


    You have to explicitly set a disc as dynamic.

    The only reason to do so is to use software RAID options. It does wreck a
    whole lot of compatibility, including with some of Microsoft's own tools
    (trying to restore a complex dynamic disk setup from backup is a major
    headache).

  3. Re: dynanic vs basic disks


    wrote in message
    news:03b1d036-2ae0-4609-a2cf-4c8bd9c3e548@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
    > As part of my work on copying files from a laptop, i tangentially came
    > across the topic of dynamic vs basic disks.
    >
    > I am looking for some validation/verification of the following:
    >
    > From my reading, it seems that basic disks are more "portable" (i.e.
    > recognized by more OSs and usable in more situations) but any changes
    > to partitions need to be done outside of the OS; while dynamic disks
    > have more flexibility (change partitoin size in the OS, etc) but are
    > limited to xp professional, vista business(nothing with a "home" in
    > the name of the os).
    >
    > I am not sure how I wound up with a dynamic disk (maybe its the
    > default windows uses when installing a new disk), but it seems to me
    > that for the average home use, basic disks is the way to go
    > 1. Move a disk from computer 1 to computer 2: basic is more flexible
    > (dynamic will limit the destination computer)
    > 2. Move a disk from internal to external enclosure: can only be done
    > with basic disks
    > Thoughts?
    >
    > Thanks in advance!


    When you think "dynamic disks", think "software RAID", mostly. Also think
    "more trouble than it's worth, certainly for a standalone "Personal
    Computer". If you like to tinker though, have at it! (Have your data safe
    elsewhere while you tinker!). When I first setup, recently, my new SATA
    desktop drives with a PCI RAID card, I thought "wow, pretty much made my
    aging desktop PC snappy again". Then when I started having reliability
    problems with the drives I was getting and had to use just a single drive, I
    noticed that most of the usable day to day snappiness was still there:
    because the new drives perform better (surely because of the platter
    density, as they are the same RPM as the old drive and my motherboard
    doesn't support NCQ nor SATA II and I don't think a single drive can
    saturate a 1.5 Gb/s bus anyway).

    Remember that with MS Dynamic Disks, the Windows system partition cannot be
    striped (nor mirrored?) so there will be no performance gain from that.
    Also, consider how striping drives will complicate your backup and restore
    process. If you really want RAID 0 (reliability) or RAID 1 (performance), I
    suggest you buy a GOOD RAID card or a new motherboard that supports RAID (I
    prefer the latter at this time and am waiting till nice processors come down
    to about $100, but it's my job to evaluate this stuff... I prefer
    simplicity). Note that you should have a spare drive on hand in case one of
    your RAID 0/1 array drives fails (most cards support hot spares). RAID is
    not a substitute for backup or imaging.

    All in all, most should not waste time with RAID (it's for servers!) and
    rather invest that time in obtaining or evolving a robust backup and imaging
    solution. SSDs (fast and reliable) are not as far as they appear (here now
    if you are rich).

    Tony



  4. Re: dynanic vs basic disks

    zigipha@hotmail.com wrote:

    > As part of my work on copying files from a laptop, i tangentially
    > came across the topic of dynamic vs basic disks.


    > I am looking for some validation/verification of the following:


    > From my reading, it seems that basic disks are more "portable"
    > (i.e. recognized by more OSs and usable in more situations)


    Correct.

    > but any changes to partitions need to be done outside of the OS;


    Not correct.

    > while dynamic disks have more flexibility


    Correct.

    > (change partitoin size in the OS, etc)


    And can have more than one physical drive in the dynamic disk and RAID etc.

    > but are limited to xp professional, vista business(nothing with a "home" in the name of the os).


    Its a bit more complicated than that, but thats the basic idea.

    > I am not sure how I wound up with a dynamic disk


    Usually someone set it up that way, often unknowningly.

    > (maybe its the default windows uses when installing a new disk),


    Nope.

    > but it seems to me that for the average home use, basic disks is the way to go


    Correct.

    > 1. Move a disk from computer 1 to computer 2: basic is
    > more flexible (dynamic will limit the destination computer)


    And recovery is easier, as you discovered.

    > 2. Move a disk from internal to external enclosure: can only be done with basic disks


    Correct.

    > Thoughts?


    I avoid those, they just make my head hurt.

    > Thanks in advance!


    Even if we tell you to go and shove your head up a dead bear's bum ?



  5. Re: dynanic vs basic disks

    On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 16:44:26 -0700 (PDT), zigipha@hotmail.com had a
    flock of green cheek conures squawk out:

    >As part of my work on copying files from a laptop, i tangentially came
    >across the topic of dynamic vs basic disks.
    >
    >I am looking for some validation/verification of the following:
    >
    >From my reading, it seems that basic disks are more "portable" (i.e.
    >recognized by more OSs and usable in more situations) but any changes
    >to partitions need to be done outside of the OS; while dynamic disks
    >have more flexibility (change partitoin size in the OS, etc) but are
    >limited to xp professional, vista business(nothing with a "home" in
    >the name of the os).
    >
    >I am not sure how I wound up with a dynamic disk (maybe its the
    >default windows uses when installing a new disk), but it seems to me
    >that for the average home use, basic disks is the way to go
    >1. Move a disk from computer 1 to computer 2: basic is more flexible
    >(dynamic will limit the destination computer)
    >2. Move a disk from internal to external enclosure: can only be done
    >with basic disks
    > Thoughts?
    >
    >Thanks in advance!


    For dynamic disks, windows stores the info needed to access them on
    another drive. I found that out when I re-formatted one and lost
    access to the other one.

    Stephen

    --
    Stephen

    Have a Problem, Blame it on El Niņo

  6. Re: dynanic vs basic disks

    On Sep 24, 3:22*am, "Rod Speed" wrote:
    > zigi...@hotmail.com wrote:
    > > As part of my work on copying files from a laptop, i tangentially
    > > came across the topic of dynamic vs basic disks.
    > > I am looking for some validation/verification of the following:
    > > From my reading, it seems that basic disks are more "portable"
    > > (i.e. recognized by more OSs and usable in more situations)

    >
    > Correct.
    >
    > > but any changes to partitions need to be done outside of the OS;

    >
    > Not correct.
    >
    > > while dynamic disks have more flexibility

    >
    > Correct.
    >
    > > (change partitoin size in the OS, etc)

    >
    > And can have more than one physical drive in the dynamic disk and RAID etc.
    >
    > > but are limited to xp professional, vista business(nothing with a "home" in the name of the os).

    >
    > Its a bit more complicated than that, but thats the basic idea.
    >
    > > I am not sure how I wound up with a dynamic disk

    >
    > Usually someone set it up that way, often unknowningly.
    >
    > > (maybe its the default windows uses when installing a new disk),

    >
    > Nope.
    >
    > > but it seems to me that for the average home use, basic disks is the way to go

    >
    > Correct.
    >
    > > 1. Move a disk from computer 1 to computer 2: basic is
    > > more flexible (dynamic will limit the destination computer)

    >
    > And recovery is easier, as you discovered.
    >
    > > 2. Move a disk from internal to external enclosure: can only be done with basic disks

    >
    > Correct.
    >
    > > Thoughts?

    >
    > I avoid those, they just make my head hurt.
    >
    > > Thanks in advance!

    >
    > Even if we tell you to go and shove your head up a dead bear's bum ?


    Yes even if you tell me that lol

    Thanks for the feedback

  7. Re: dynanic vs basic disks

    "Stephen" schreef in bericht
    news:5evkd45phv1alomr384bnocigu14b0mcj2@4ax.com...
    >>Thanks in advance!

    >
    > For dynamic disks, windows stores the info needed to access them on
    > another drive. I found that out when I re-formatted one and lost
    > access to the other one.
    >


    You can make a single disk dynamic. So where's that info stored then?



  8. Re: dynanic vs basic disks

    In message <5evkd45phv1alomr384bnocigu14b0mcj2@4ax.com> Stephen
    wrote:

    >For dynamic disks, windows stores the info needed to access them on
    >another drive. I found that out when I re-formatted one and lost
    >access to the other one.


    You can still import a drive even without previous knowledge of the
    drive, there are just a couple extra steps.

  9. Re: dynanic vs basic disks

    In message <15208$48da9703$3ec3e0b7$24280@news.chello.nl> "Joep"
    wrote:

    >"Stephen" schreef in bericht
    >news:5evkd45phv1alomr384bnocigu14b0mcj2@4ax.com...
    >>>Thanks in advance!

    >>
    >> For dynamic disks, windows stores the info needed to access them on
    >> another drive. I found that out when I re-formatted one and lost
    >> access to the other one.

    >
    >You can make a single disk dynamic. So where's that info stored then?
    >


    Each and every dynamic disk has enough information to understand the
    structure and to allow Windows to figure out which volumes belong to
    which set even if the disks are moved to another computer in the wrong
    order.

    In addition, the layout data is stored in the registry, but you most
    definitely can move dynamic disks to new machines, import them and gain
    access to the data.

  10. Re: dynanic vs basic disks

    "DevilsPGD" schreef in bericht
    news:38dld4h592j3vm1rmj3jcjhpgoe5j80ek2@4ax.com...
    > In message <15208$48da9703$3ec3e0b7$24280@news.chello.nl> "Joep"
    > wrote:
    >
    >>"Stephen" schreef in bericht
    >>news:5evkd45phv1alomr384bnocigu14b0mcj2@4ax.com...
    >>>>Thanks in advance!
    >>>
    >>> For dynamic disks, windows stores the info needed to access them on
    >>> another drive. I found that out when I re-formatted one and lost
    >>> access to the other one.

    >>
    >>You can make a single disk dynamic. So where's that info stored then?
    >>

    >
    > Each and every dynamic disk has enough information to understand the
    > structure and to allow Windows to figure out which volumes belong to
    > which set even if the disks are moved to another computer in the wrong
    > order.
    >


    Each disk contains *all* info. It's not on another disk, it is not 'just'
    enough, each disk contains a complete LDM database.



  11. Re: dynanic vs basic disks

    In message <8a4dd$48db4158$3ec3e0b7$3081@news.chello.nl> "Joep"
    wrote:

    >"DevilsPGD" schreef in bericht
    >news:38dld4h592j3vm1rmj3jcjhpgoe5j80ek2@4ax.com...
    >> In message <15208$48da9703$3ec3e0b7$24280@news.chello.nl> "Joep"
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>>"Stephen" schreef in bericht
    >>>news:5evkd45phv1alomr384bnocigu14b0mcj2@4ax.com...
    >>>>>Thanks in advance!
    >>>>
    >>>> For dynamic disks, windows stores the info needed to access them on
    >>>> another drive. I found that out when I re-formatted one and lost
    >>>> access to the other one.
    >>>
    >>>You can make a single disk dynamic. So where's that info stored then?
    >>>

    >>
    >> Each and every dynamic disk has enough information to understand the
    >> structure and to allow Windows to figure out which volumes belong to
    >> which set even if the disks are moved to another computer in the wrong
    >> order.
    >>

    >
    >Each disk contains *all* info. It's not on another disk, it is not 'just'
    >enough, each disk contains a complete LDM database.


    Funny, that's *exactly* what I juts said. I didn't even use the word
    "just"

  12. Re: dynanic vs basic disks

    "DevilsPGD" schreef in bericht
    >>>>You can make a single disk dynamic. So where's that info stored then?
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> Each and every dynamic disk has enough information to understand the
    >>> structure and to allow Windows to figure out which volumes belong to
    >>> which set even if the disks are moved to another computer in the wrong
    >>> order.
    >>>

    >>
    >>Each disk contains *all* info. It's not on another disk, it is not 'just'
    >>enough, each disk contains a complete LDM database.

    >
    > Funny, that's *exactly* what I juts said. I didn't even use the word
    > "just"


    No you didn't. Anyway, my question 'where is it stored then' wasn't really a
    question. It was making a point to poster that stated " For dynamic disks,
    windows stores the info needed to access them on
    another drive."



+ Reply to Thread